The truth is a huge body of CAM has been looked at, and tested scientifically; most of it has been found to be wanting; some has been found to be useful, and is

The truth is a huge body of CAM has been looked at, and tested scientifically; most of it has been found to be wanting; some has been found to be useful, and is now 'medicine', some of it has still not been looked at. It's this kind of nuance that I want to see - and the lack of it that triggered my first response. Should I wait for other people to decide? I don't know. I am opinionated and a passionate advocate of better healthcare and increased scientific awareness. Sometimes I express my points of view. Yes, and you possibly overestimate just how much can be known with certainty, given how much complexity exists in the natural world, and how little of it is (or can be) understood. Without meaning to sound like a complete tosser, I try to adopt a Socratic position on matters of science, particularly medicine: all that we can really know is that we know little. Sure, we can think we know things based on evidence, but we cannot fully know the limits of that evidence, or what new evidence may be discovered to disprove what we thought was proven by earlier evidence. Really, the history of science is replacing old evidence with new evidence. This is why I think this project is such an interesting exercise, and why react so strongly to the idea of dogmatically ruling anything out.